Hybrid networks
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 45

HYBRID NETWORKS PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

HYBRID NETWORKS. Gregg Bachmeyer Integrating UMTS and Bluetooth Integrating Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks Darien Hirotsu Integrating DTN and MANET Paradigms. By Gregg Bachmeyer for CMPE 257.

Download Presentation

HYBRID NETWORKS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


HYBRID NETWORKS

  • Gregg Bachmeyer

    • Integrating UMTS and Bluetooth

    • Integrating Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks

  • Darien Hirotsu

    • Integrating DTN and MANET Paradigms


By Gregg Bachmeyer

for CMPE 257

Hybrid Networks- A Hybrid Architecture Of UMTS and BlueTooth For Indoor Wireless/Mobile Communications- Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks - Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications


Hybrid Networks

  • Hybrid networks refers to any networks that contain two or more communication standards


Personal Experience (2001)

Compaq Presario 7240

Phonenet

Appletalk

230kbs

10Base-T

IEEE 802.3,

10 mbs/hd

Powermac 7100

MAC SE/30

10Base-T

IEEE 802.3

100mbs/fd

Phoneline

PPP/Slip

56kbs

internet

10Base2

IEEE 802.3

10mbs/hd

D-Link DE 809TC

HP 9000 apollo 400


Common experience (2011)

Dsl box

internet


Why hybrid networks can be hard to deal with

  • Reliability

  • Speed

  • Addressing/Routing

  • Intent


Speed differences


A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS

  • T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA

    • UCLA Computer Science, 3803B Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095,USA

    • E-mail: {tedkwon,rohitk,yenglee,gerla}@cs.ucla.edu

  • A. ZANELLA

    • Universita degli Studi de Padova, Via Gradenigo 6/A, 35131 Padova,Italia

    • E-mail: zanella@dei.unipd.it


UTMS

  • Cell phone coverage

  • Third generation mobile communications system (3G)

    • In process of changing to 4g

  • 2 main interfaces

    • UMTS–FDD based on wideband–CDMA

      • outdoor macro–cellular or micro–cellular communication environments.

    • UMTS–TDD based on combination of CDMA & TDMA

      • indoor pico–cellular communication environments.

      • Allows symmetetric radio resources between uplink and downlink

      • Higher bit rate


Bluetooth

  • Limited radio coverage

  • Referred to as scatternet or piconet Primarily related to PANs (Personal area networks)

  • Bluetooth operates in the 2.4GHz ISM frequency band

  • uses a fast frequency–hopping technique to minimize interference

  • range of approximately 10 meters

  • Supports many different addressing types


Proposed Solution

  • using a hierarchical approach.

    • UMTS base station

    • UMTS UEs are hybrid devices that also have a Bluetooth interface

    • Scatternets

    • Don’t use 802.11b because it will cause interference with Bluetooth

    • 802.11 has high power requirements


A Hybrid Architecture of Bluetooth and UMTS


Topology of the architecture showing a 3x3 Bluetooth scatternet

  • 3X3 piconets

  • Gray lines show communication routes

  • possible uses

    • “Intelligent–Supermarket,” a central server

    • Library

    • Cafeteria


Simulation Setup

  • GloMoSim (scalable simulation library)

    • Bluetooth model

      • Layer: Logical link control and adaptation protocol

      • Connection :Asynchronous Connectionless

    • UMTS model

      • turbo coding with 1/3 forward error correction (FEC)

      • A dynamic radio resource allocation (frame-by-frame)

    • Routing Protocol: AODV


Network Configuration

  • 2 setups

    • Common

      • D represents bluetooth polling cycle

    • 2 hybrid devices, each of which serves 3 BT masters

      • Bluetooth device is connected to the UMTS BS through a hybrid device and another in which a single hybrid device may be used to connect more than one Bluetooth device to the UMTS BS

      • Each BT master is a slave in the piconet of the hybrid unit.

      • Each piconet contains 4 slaves

      • D represents bluetooth polling cycle

    • six hybrid devices and six Bluetooth devices

      • each hybrid device needs to service only one Bluetooth device.

      • bandwidth wasted for polling is not significant in this case.


Underyling Protocol Issue

  • The paper does not cover how to do addressing so Ethernet protocol is assumed.

  • May need something like a protocol to traverse hybrid networks


Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: BridgingInfrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks

  • RaoNaveed Bin Rais

    • University of Nice - INRIA

    • Sophia Antipolis, France

    • Email: nbrais@sophia.inria.fr

  • Marc Mendonca

    • University of California

    • Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    • Email: msm@soe.ucsc.edu

  • Thierry Turletti

    • INRIA

    • Sophia Antipolis, France

    • Email: turletti@sophia.inria.fr

  • KatiaObraczka

    • University of California

    • Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    • Email: katia@soe.ucsc.edu


Overall Issue

  • Original MeDeHa was only partial solution

    • Does not deal with infrastructures networks

  • Improvement is MeDeHa++

    • Allow ad-hoc networks to act as gateways in, through, from networks.


MeDeHa++ Framework

  • The MeDeHa++ framework achieves the following goals:

    • Seamless message delivery between two nodes irrespective of network type.

    • Partition mending through multihop ad-hoc (MANET) “transit networks”.

    • MANET routing protocol independence. This allows MANET nodes to communicate with MeDeHa++ nodes without running MeDeHa++.


Expected new network combinations to support

GW nodes connecting two different MANETs

GW nodes connecting two different MANETs


A typical example of message delivery in MANET


MeDeHa++ Functional Components

  • Notification Protocol

    • Neighbor Sensing

      • Broadcasts Hello messages (+ status) to build routing table

    • Neighborhood Information exchange

      • Many different messages to determine the gateway and neighbors

  • Routing and Contact Table Management

    • Handles routing tables marking them as

      • Current neighbors

      • Recent neighbors

      • MANET neighbors

  • Relay Selection and Forwarding

    • Uses the routing table to reduce replication of messages

  • Interaction with MANETs

    • Helps in interaction with other routing protocols


MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks

  • MANET Information Exchange

    • GW is detected by neighbor sensing MANET protocol

    • GW consults the MANET routing table to keep info current

    • GW keeps track of past encounters

    • Notifies the AP about new infrastructure nodes to forward packets to them

    • Has a possibility of sending a leave network packet (can this really happen?)

  • Gateway Discovery in MANETs

    • Use the connectivity info to

      • discover gateways

      • Exchange data and control information

    • Allows MANETs to act as “transit networks”

    • Direct Neighbors can use MeDaHa++

    • Multihop connections can use IP encapsulation


MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks (cont…)

  • Proactive vs. Reactive MANET Routing

    • GW node running AODV may not have all routing info necessary

    • Proactive routing will provide better routing (like OLSR – Optimized link state routing)

  • Message Delivery to MANETs

    • GW node is used to bridge the MDH nodes

    • GW passes information to MDH nodes with

      recent neighbors packet

    • GW nodes buffer packets to provide to the MDH nodes ( packets expire after a time)

  • Message Delivery across MANETs

    • Able to provide multihop communication between 2 GWs using MANET routing protocol as if GWs are neighbors

    • GWs exchange routing info with the MeDeHa++ messages

    • Nodes and forward and receive packets


Test Setup

  • Simulation

    • NS-3 simulator

    • Measuring Packet delivery ratio.

  • Physical

    • Linux Implementation with netfilter

  • 4 Scenarios

    • Convention Center

    • Community InterConnection with MANETs

    • KAIST Real Mobility Traces

    • Hybrid Experiment Results


Scenario 1: Convention Center

  • Convention Center

    • 1000x1000 meter

    • 60% access points

    • (senerio 1) 90 visitors

      • 20 sources +20 receivers

      • 30 gateways

      • 30 MeDeHa++ nodes

      • 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes

    • (senerio 2) 90 visitors (social affiliation)

      • 3 groups of 20 affiliations

      • 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes

    • BonnMotion mobility model

    • 1 hour

    • 2 phases

      • Forwarding vs. Replication

      • Relay Selection Strategy


Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 1 - Forwarding vs. Replication

  • Increases delivery chances (90% to 97%)

  • Minimizes AD

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)


Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 2 - Forwarding vs. Replication

  • Drastic decrease in AD due to increase of participating nodes in SAR (Social Affiliation Replication) – [due to ER relay restictions]

  • Increase in average PDR and increase in delay when using encounter based replication

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER and SAR schemes for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)


Senerio 2 :Community Intercommunication with MANETs

  • 3 different communities

    • Areas

      • 600 x 600 meters

      • 400 x 400 meters

    • 20 gateways

    • 3 AP routers

    • Each community has 10 nodes (2 gateways)


Senerio 2 :Community Inter-communication with MANETs (cont…)

  • Improves PDR slightly

  • Slightly increases AD

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for scenario 2

Impact of different encounter parameters on fraction of nodes while comparing forwarding and replication for scenario 2


Senerio 3: KAIST Mobility Traces

  • Used real traces

    • 2 hours

    • 40 students

    • Random student

      movement

  • Achieved

    • Improvement in PDR

    • Decrease in AD

    • 2-copy replications perform

      better than 1

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication showing a comparison between

MeDeHa and MeDeHa++ using KAIST mobility traces for 40 nodes


Scenario 4: Hybrid Experiment Results

  • Systems

    • 4 laptops as wireless stations

    • 3 laptops as AP routers

      • Has NS3 simulation of 30 workstations

    • 2 briefcases

    • Used OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing )

  • Outcomes

    • Hybrid outcome matches that of what the

      Simulation provided

    • 2-copy replications perform

      better than 1

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication comparison resulting from a hybrid scenario involving real and simulation machines


Benefits

  • Many scenarios showed benefits in different ways including conceptually.

  • Networks became gateway dependent.


Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks forReal-Time Industrial Communications

  • Stefano Vitturi

    • Italian National Council of Research, IEIIT–CNR, Department of Information Engineering University of Padova

    • Via Gradenigo 6/B 35131 – Padova (Italy)

    • vitturi@dei.unipd.it

  • Daniele Miorandi

    • CREATE-NETv. Solteri 38

    • 38100 – Trento (Italy)

    • daniele.miorandi@create-net.it


Using wireless in 802.11 in industrial situations

  • Factory automation using sensor and actuators.

  • There are existing protocols that are used

    • R-FIELDBUS (High Performance Wireless Fieldbus In Industrial Related Multi-Media Environment)

    • PROFIBUS DP (Decentralized Peripherals) used to operate sensors/actuators from centralized controller

    • UDP (User Datagram Protocol )

    • DSSS(direct-sequence spread spectrum) physical layer of IEEE 802.11

    • IP (Internet Protocol)


Hybrid configuration for stations using the UDP based communication profile

TCP

- more reliable

- has congestion control

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UDP

- removes the 802.1D need

- can have packet lose


The Ethernet PDU

  • Use UDP over TCP to move IP packets around.

  • Supportsrealtime and non-realtime traffic

  • Control a token at the application layer to

  • Assumes that Ethernet, 802.11, reduce need for TCP.

  • TCP congestion control may negatively effect network performance

  • Uses SEND and SEND WITH REPLAY (which allows confirmed transmission between the systems)


Industrial importance

  • Cyclic & Acyclic data

    • Round robin scheme called Profibus DP that include priorities levels.

    • Queries slaves for cyclic data

    • Then repeats the cycle for acyclic data

  • Stations are passive

  • CSMA/CS in 802.11 limits the effect of collisions.


Mean cycle time vs. number of wireless passive stations, Nwd = 10

Mean cycle time

Deviation


Mean alarm latency vs. number of wireless passive stations, Nwd =10.


Mean cycle time vs. number of wired passive stations, Nwl = 7.

Mean cycle time

Deviation


Mean alarm latency vs. number of wired passive stations, Nwl = 7.


Author conclusions

  • The outcome appears to allow usage of 802.11 for sensor networks

  • Using IEEE 802.15.3 instead of 802.11 and a TDMA setup could allow fewer collisions.

  • Field buses normally do not use UDP.


References

  • Wireless Data Demystified by John R. Vacca

  • A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS by T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA & A. ZANELLA

  • Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications by Stefano Vitturi & Daniele Miorandi

  • Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks by RaoNaveed Bin Rais, Marc Mendonca, Thierry Turletti, & KatiaObraczka


  • Login